SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Following grounds have been taken by the assessee: “1. That the ld. CIT(A)-2 not allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee U/s 54B of Rs. 5,39,67,384/- on sale of agriculture land and confirmed the addition made by the A.O. 2. That the appellant

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

143(3) of ITA, vide order, dated 12.12,2018, wherein, the claim made by the assessee under section 54B for an amount of Rs. 1,47,42,303 was rejected by the ld. AO. On the following grounds: 3 Guruvendra Singh vs. ACIT, Circle-01, Kota i) on the one hand the assessee stated that the agricultural land sold

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

section 143(3) on 24.02.2016 at an income of Rs 18,21,680/-. It has been noticed that the assessee had sold residential plot on 27.07.2012 at a sale consideration of Rs 1,00,00,000/-. Long Term Capital Gain

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) is the service of a notice u/s 143(2). It is\nbased on the rule of “Audi alteram partem” i.e. no man should be condemned\nunheard. Hence, if the return filed by an assessee is not accepted the AO shall issue a\nnotice u/s 143(2). No such notice was issued and therefore order is bad. ACIT vs.\nHotel

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital, etc., and from the documents searched/ seized, it is alleged that assessee is one of the beneficiaries. Based on this information the ld. AO recorded reasons to believe that, certain income had escaped tax, and accordingly initiated the reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 on 21.3.2015 and passed the reassessment order by increasing the assessed income with

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital, etc., and from the documents searched/ seized, it is alleged that assessee is one of the beneficiaries. Based on this information the ld. AO recorded reasons to believe that, certain income had escaped tax, and accordingly initiated the reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 on 21.3.2015 and passed the reassessment order by increasing the assessed income with

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 22.12.2018. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following 2 Indira Giri vs. ITO grounds:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in law in upholding the action of Ld. AO in denying relief

KIRAN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 50C to his notice. Further in the show cause notice proposed computation of capital gain was given. The assessee has requested for personal hearing on VC. However in the show cause notice it was clearly mentioned asunder: If required, after filing written reply you may request for personal hearing so as to make oral submissions or present your case

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3)- Long term capital gain claimed exempt u/s\n10(38)- AO denied exemption and assessed it as unexplained income u/s 68/69\nby treating the transaction of purchase and sale of shares as not genuine by\nrelying on the information received from DIT, Kolkata that in survey/search\ncarried out in office of broking house certain entry operators including Shri\nDeepak

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAVINDRA MITTAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 823/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 D.C.I.T., Cuke Shri Ravindra Mittal, Vs. Circle-6, 804, Akshat Niley Apartment, Jaipur. Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aexpm 9057 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) determining total income of assessee at Rs. 8,81,03,620/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of both the parties as well as material placed before him, given relief

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 153A in respect of these four assessment years

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 153A in respect of these four assessment years

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 153A in respect of these four assessment years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 153A in respect of these four assessment years

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

143 (3). The assessee requested copy of reasons recorded and copy of sanctions accorded u/s 151 which were supplied and also filed objections to notice u/s 148 which were rejected by A.O.. The A.O. proceeded to ITA 437/JP/2017_ 3 DCIT Vs. Vimal Chand Surana (HUF) reassess the assessee HUF and completed the re-assessment by adding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

143(3)/153B(1b) of the IT Act on 31.03.2015. Copy of order is placed on paper book page no. 1 to 5. During the course of original assessment proceedings the assessee has submitted all the necessary documents including receipt & payment account, balance sheet, list of debtors, list of creditors, loans & advances and thereafter the assessment was completed. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

143(3) read with section 153A of the IT Act, 1961 making an addition of Rs. 27,01,95,945/- to the declared income on account of alleged Long Term Capital Gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLEH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

143(3) read with section 153A of the IT Act, 1961 making an addition of Rs. 27,01,95,945/- to the declared income on account of alleged Long Term Capital Gain